Dash Posted December 8, 2010 Report Share Posted December 8, 2010 In a podcast conveyed to NBA players, union chief Billy Hunter said that he will not agree to a hard cap with the league seeing large growth in revenues. Details of the union's proposal for the next collective bargaining agreement were obtained by the New York Times. They include expanding flexibility for completing trades (such that player salaries traded only need to be within approximately 250 percent of each other), eliminating base-year compensation rules, increasing qualifying offers required to make a player a restricted free agent, shortening the time period a team has to match a restricted free agent's offer sheet, replacing the biannual exception with a second midlevel exception, and dropping the age limit back to 18. Read more: http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/70469/20101208/unions_cba_proposal_leaked/#ixzz17Y2TPzBg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest STL10 Posted December 8, 2010 Report Share Posted December 8, 2010 Billy Hunter speaks the truth. [expletive] David Stern! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Check my Stats Posted December 8, 2010 Report Share Posted December 8, 2010 LOL. All I have to say is good luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owner Real Deal Posted December 8, 2010 Owner Report Share Posted December 8, 2010 such that player salaries traded only need to be within approximately 250 percent of each otherHuh? That doesn't make sense. So, a $12 million player can be traded for a $30 million? Haha...whoever wrote the article must have misread the information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Built Ford Tough Posted December 8, 2010 Report Share Posted December 8, 2010 Huh? That doesn't make sense. So, a $12 million player can be traded for a $30 million? Haha...whoever wrote the article must have misread the information. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if that is correct based on the other information mentioned. They might as well just ask for no salary cap at all if they want all of these changes. Two MLE's mean that you can pay roughly $10-12M on free agency even if you are over the cap. What is the point in having a cap if you are able to spend so much money even when you are over it? If the NBPA are insisting on these changes, I'm 100% sure that there will be a lockout. These are just ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Truth Posted December 11, 2010 Report Share Posted December 11, 2010 Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if that is correct based on the other information mentioned. They might as well just ask for no salary cap at all if they want all of these changes. Two MLE's mean that you can pay roughly $10-12M on free agency even if you are over the cap. What is the point in having a cap if you are able to spend so much money even when you are over it? If the NBPA are insisting on these changes, I'm 100% sure that there will be a lockout. These are just ridiculous.I'm sure they're just shooting for the moon. that's always what happens at the beginning of business negotiations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Built Ford Tough Posted December 11, 2010 Report Share Posted December 11, 2010 I'm sure they're just shooting for the moon. that's always what happens at the beginning of business negotiations. I realize that, but it still doesn't change how ludicrous 99% of these demands are. It also isn't exactly the beginning of these negotiations either, at least as far as I know. They've been discussing this since the summer, but I don't know if this is the first formal proposal, so I guess that would count as the beginning, haha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Truth Posted December 11, 2010 Report Share Posted December 11, 2010 I realize that, but it still doesn't change how ludicrous 99% of these demands are. It also isn't exactly the beginning of these negotiations either, at least as far as I know. They've been discussing this since the summer, but I don't know if this is the first formal proposal, so I guess that would count as the beginning, haha.I wouldn't really call them demands; I'd say they're more like proposals. which of them do you find 'ludicrous?' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headliner Posted December 12, 2010 Report Share Posted December 12, 2010 This proposal just undo’s what the league got form the last CBA and I don’t see the league take 2 steps back when they took a step forward to get what they got in the last CBA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AboveLegit Posted December 12, 2010 Report Share Posted December 12, 2010 I don't think they'll come to an agreement with everything being mentioned, I just believe the Player's Union will eventually cave. Too many players don't have enough money saved. They can't go without a paycheck for more than 5-6 months. We'll probably be seeing another 50 game season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish7718 Posted December 12, 2010 Report Share Posted December 12, 2010 LOLExactly my thoughts, they want wayyyyyyyyyyyyy to much, some of these terms are just horrifying as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Truth Posted December 12, 2010 Report Share Posted December 12, 2010 This proposal just undo’s what the league got form the last CBA and I don’t see the league take 2 steps back when they took a step forward to get what they got in the last CBA.that's the whole point of a proposal lol. you shoot for the moon and see what you get. the last CBA gave too much power to the league and not enough to the players. they want their cut now. Exactly my thoughts, they want wayyyyyyyyyyyyy to much, some of these terms are just horrifying as well.how? why? no one has explained why they think these proposals are over the top. you all just say, 'oh, this is so ridiculous,' as if the league's proposals aren't even more ridiculous. do you guys realize Stern has asked to rollback current player contracts? in other words, he wants to take money from the players who have already signed contracts. do you really think that's fair, at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish7718 Posted December 12, 2010 Report Share Posted December 12, 2010 how? why? no one has explained why they think these proposals are over the top. you all just say, 'oh, this is so ridiculous,' as if the league's proposals aren't even more ridiculous. do you guys realize Stern has asked to rollback current player contracts? in other words, he wants to take money from the players who have already signed contracts. do you really think that's fair, at all?Did you even read what they want to do? Do you know what a team like LA or Miami can do with 2 MLE's per year, especially with no hard cap? Factor that in with that fact they almost cut the salary restrictions completely on trading if those numbers are correct... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Truth Posted December 12, 2010 Report Share Posted December 12, 2010 Did you even read what they want to do? Do you know what a team like LA or Miami can do with 2 MLE's per year, especially with no hard cap? Factor that in with that fact they almost cut the salary restrictions completely on trading if those numbers are correct...I agree with you about the MLE's. they should really just use a hard cap imo; then they wouldn't have to have all these ridiculous exceptions. I wouldn't really oppose cutting salary restrictions in trades, though. that would allow for a lot more deals, which I love. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest STL10 Posted December 12, 2010 Report Share Posted December 12, 2010 Did you even read what they want to do? Do you know what a team like LA or Miami can do with 2 MLE's per year, especially with no hard cap? Factor that in with that fact they almost cut the salary restrictions completely on trading if those numbers are correct... What is so wrong with 2 MLE's? If the owners want to spend the most money on their teams then LET THEM! Anyone notice baseball has the most parity of all the three sports? #1 reason...NO SALARY CAP! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish7718 Posted December 12, 2010 Report Share Posted December 12, 2010 What is so wrong with 2 MLE's? If the owners want to spend the most money on their teams then LET THEM! Anyone notice baseball has the most parity of all the three sports? #1 reason...NO SALARY CAP!lol football has the most parity of any sport, with no salary cap the Knicks and Lakers would DOMINATE it'd be a joke. Stop trying to compare MLB to the NBA, two completely different sports. The impact of a star player in the NBA is far greater than the impact of a star player of MLB. 2 MLE's = bad idea, good veteran players will take discounts to play for heat and lakers and other great teams and the NBA will become awful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owner Real Deal Posted December 13, 2010 Owner Report Share Posted December 13, 2010 I don't like the idea of two MLE's, but I will say that Buss wouldn't use both every year. In fact, I have a hard time thinking he would use both at all, ever, unless the Lakers were well under the luxury tax and cap. Let's put it this way: he declined a deal that would bring Kirk Hinrich to Los Angeles, just for Sasha, Farmar and Walton, because he wanted Farmar to expire, plans on letting Vujacic do the same, and did not want to grab at Kirk's $9 million a year contract. He has stated himself that he's not making as much off of each season like he used to, despite winning championships again, and that he's looking to save money (which is one reason why he let Ariza go even though Trevor ended up signing for less than he wanted), and eventually re-signed Lamar for much cheaper than the $14 million/year he was making in the 2008-09 season (making just $7 million now). I have a gut feeling a lot of owners, despite the money, would do the same...but yeah, I can imagine a few would go all out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Built Ford Tough Posted December 13, 2010 Report Share Posted December 13, 2010 I wouldn't really call them demands; I'd say they're more like proposals. which of them do you find 'ludicrous?' Two MLE's gives teams over the cap roughly $10-12M to spend an offseason plus bird rights which means we could see teams who are already millions of dollars over the cap adding more than $20M to their cap in a single offseason. What exactly is the point of a "salary cap" if you are enabling teams to add $10-12M each season to their team that is already over the cap? Add to this, having two MLE's would not only give more money to teams over the cap to spend, but it will also increase the value of the MLE in general. With teams handing out two MLE's a year, or at the very least one and a half, the average salary in the league is going to increase, which in turns increases the value of the MLE. Who's to say that in 4 years after 90% of the league is dishing out 2 MLE style contracts that the value of the MLE won't become something like $7M each? Not saying that this will happen, but it is a possibility. The whole 200%+ (don't remember the exact number and am too lazy to look it up) trade restriction is just as bad. What is the point on even having any sort of restrictions on trades if you are allowed to go ahead and trade for basically anybody? Just get rid of the rule completely if you are going to allow teams to trade so freely. Basically, just ask for the salary cap to be removed completely. That is basically what this is doing in the first place, so why bother trying to sugarcoat it? And yes, I realize that these are just the NBAPA shooting for the moon and none of this will actually happen, but it goes back to my original point which is that the two sides are clearly on opposite ends of the spectrum which will lead to a lockout. When the NHL had a lockout a few years ago, the NHL and NHLPA weren't this far apart on negotiations and it was widely known that a lockout would occur, which is why I said that a lockout next year looks to be inevitable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?QuestionMark? Posted December 15, 2010 Report Share Posted December 15, 2010 I personally have no sympathy for the owners in this. No one is forcing them to overpay to get mediocre players. They complain about player's salaries but no one points a gun to their head telling them to give Drew Gooden 32 million, Amir Johnson 34 million, Luke Walton 30 million, etc. Owners are their own worst enemies. Mike Conly is a good PG, not worth 9 mil a year and Memphis would have been better off matching an offer sheet than outbidding themselves. As for the CBA negotiations, both sides are so far apart I fully expect a lockout. Stern wants a whole new system while the players just want to tweak the current one. Personally, I like the current system but clearly needs to be tweaked. I think the players own the ultimate trump card if they decertify the union. No more salary cap, no more age limits, no more maximum roster sizes, no more draft. It's not what will be best for the league, but it would be fun to see Stern lose his [expletive] if it happens. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dash Posted December 15, 2010 Author Report Share Posted December 15, 2010 I personally have no sympathy for the owners in this. No one is forcing them to overpay to get mediocre players. They complain about player's salaries but no one points a gun to their head telling them to give Drew Gooden 32 million, Amir Johnson 34 million, Luke Walton 30 million, etc. Owners are their own worst enemies. Mike Conly is a good PG, not worth 9 mil a year and Memphis would have been better off matching an offer sheet than outbidding themselves. As for the CBA negotiations, both sides are so far apart I fully expect a lockout. Stern wants a whole new system while the players just want to tweak the current one. Personally, I like the current system but clearly needs to be tweaked. I think the players own the ultimate trump card if they decertify the union. No more salary cap, no more age limits, no more maximum roster sizes, no more draft. It's not what will be best for the league, but it would be fun to see Stern lose his [expletive] if it happens. Great first two posts dude, welcome to the best ?? :glasses: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.